US Case

Fla. teens accused of gang rape attack

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press WriterSat Jul 7, 11:52 AM ET

Two teenagers were accused of gang raping a woman and forcing her 12-year-old son to join in the attack, then beating him and pouring cleaning solution into his eyes.

Authorities allege Avion Lawson, 14, and Nathan Walker, 16, were among a group of about 10 masked suspects who forced their way into the woman's apartment in a crime-ridden housing project the night of June 18.

The two were being held without bail Friday on suspicion of armed sexual battery by multiple perpetrators, sexual performance by a child, armed home invasion and aggravated battery. Both were arrested this week, but formal charges had not been filed. Authorities said the two would be charged as adults.

"Any rape case is horrible but this takes it to another level, something you can't think of even in your worst dreams," police spokesman Ted White said.

According to the police report, a man knocked on the woman's door at about 9 p.m. and told her he had a flat tire. The mother and son, whom police have not identified, went outside and were ambushed by a group of gun-wielding suspects.

The victims told police they were forced back into their home and beaten and sexually assaulted. According to authorities, the men raped, sodomized and beat the woman, then forced her son to participate in the assault at gunpoint, making him have sex with his mother in front of them.

The boy was then beaten and had numerous household cleaning liquids poured into his eyes, according to the police report.
The suspects also stole a few hundred dollars worth of cash and jewelry, White said...

Australia Case

Pictured: The horror basement where sisters were raped for 41 years by their father and slowly went mad

Women were born healthy but became mentally ill because of abuse, new evidence reveals

Victims kept in dingy basement surrounded by wood and tools

Neighbours knew father as 'stern, rigid' master of his house

Women were only seen outside once - visiting mother's grave

This is the disgusting dungeon where an Austrian man violated his own daughters in a nightmare spanning 15,000 days and nights.
'If you fight back, then I will kill you,' Gottfried W. told his children Christine, 53, and Erika, 45, who were forced to sleep at night on a wooden shelf while their father, now 80, snoozed in a feather bed.
Amid farming implements, old oil drums, wood, cement sacks and filth he violated his own flesh and blood with a depravity on a par with Josef Fritzl.
His wife Berta, 85, passed away in 2008.  She too was a victim of the former council labourer's sadism, beaten like them with a stick and poked with a pitchfork.

The girls became mentally ill over the years - not a condition they were born with, but a result of the torments they suffered at his hands.
Police say their mother, also beaten into submission, made them promise on her deathbed not to tell anyone about what their father did to them.
Other rooms in the sprawling house near Braunau-am-Inn - the birthplace of Adolf Hitler - were kept spic and span.
But the girls were forced to live in squalor, sleep in the kitchen and use a commode instead of the lavatory in the house.

Forty years of abuse ended in May this year when Gottfried tried to have his way with Christine one more time and she finally snapped.
She hit him with a milk jug on the head. He fell to the floor and cracked his head again.
For two days he was unable to move and police say they hoped he would die.
Finally the women, who were seen from time to time by a social worker - but who were so conditioned by his threats never to expose his vile treatment of them - called her in.
She telephoned for an ambulance for him and the women were taken into care.  But still they said nothing.
It was only in June when they opened up to a Red Cross worker about what had happened to them.
It was this volunteer who called in the police.
Austria - still coming to terms with the kidnapping of schoolgirl Natascha Kampusch in the 90s and the Fritzl incest saga - is stunned at another terrible family crime being exposed within its borders.
Gottfried, known as Friedl to neighbours, was an archetypal Austrian father of the old school. He was stern, rigid, master of his house and keeper of the secrets that went inside it.
He controlled all social contact of his daughters with the outside world.
The only time they were seen out together was with him visiting the grave of their mother.
Gottfried has been moved to a prison in nearby Ried while the investigation against him continues; his daughters are undergoing psychiatric therapy in a clinic.
He faces charges of rape, unlawful imprisonment, cruelty, assault and making threats to kill.  He was moved from an OAP home where he had been treated since his injuries in May to the jail on Thursday.

Sydney gang rapes

The Sydney gang rapes were a series of gang rape attacks committed by a group of up to fourteen Lebanese Australian Muslims led by Bilal Skaf against non-Muslim women and teenage girls, as young as 14, in Sydney Australia in 2000. The crimes— described as ethnically motivated hate crimes by officials and commentators^[1][2][3]— were covered extensively by the news media, and prompted the passing of new laws. The nine men convicted of the gang rapes were sentenced to a total of more than 240 years in jail. According to court transcripts Judge Michael Finnane described the rapes as events "you hear about or read about only in the context of wartime atrocities".^[4]

Attacks

Day	Month	Year	Week day	Event
10	August	2000	Thursday	Attackers offered a ride and a portion of cannabis to two teenage girls aged 17 and 18. The women were taken by the attackers to Northcote Park, Greenacre where more collaborators were waiting. The women were then forced to fellate eight males.[5]
12			Saturday	A 16-year-old girl was brought to Gosling Park, Greenacre by someone who she believed was her friend, 17-year-old Mohammed Skaf. At the park she was raped by Mohammed's brother Bilal Skaf and one other man, with twelve other men present who she said were "standing around, laughing and talking in their own language".[6] The second man held a gun to her head and kicked her in the stomach before she was able to escape.[7]
30			Wednesday	Another woman was approached by attackers at the Bankstown railway station, who proposed she join them in smoking some cannabis at another location. She agreed and went with them; however she was taken to three separate locations by the men and raped 25 times by a total of fourteen men in an ordeal that lasted six hours. After the attacks the woman was hosed down with a fire hose. The woman, who was known during the trial as 'C' to protect her identity, later told her story to 60 Minutes. She told of how the attackers called her an "Aussie Pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style".[8]
4	September		Monday	Two women, both 16, were taken by the attackers from Beverly Hills railway station to a house in another suburb, where three men repeatedly raped them over a period of five hours. One of the victims was told that "You deserve it because you're an Australian".

Further attempted attacks
A further series of gang rapes were said to have been attempted, but thwarted. Four of the attackers were also convicted for an attack on Friday 4 August 2000 when they approached a fourteen-year-old girl on a train where she was threatened with violence, punched twice and slapped,^[10] told that she would be forced to perform fellatio on several men and that she was going to be raped.^[11]

[edit] Attackers

• Bilal Skaf led and orchestrated the three August 2000 attacks. He was initially sentenced to a total of 55 years imprisonment, but had his sentence for these attacks reduced by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to 28 years, with no parole for the first 22 years. However, on 28 July 2006 Acting Justice Jane Mathews added another ten years to his sentence for his role in the 12 August rape. His original conviction over this attack had been quashed in 2004 and a retrial ordered after it was revealed that two jurors had conducted their own investigations at Gosling Park.^[12] Bilal Skaf is eligible for release on parole from 11 February 2033. In March 2003 Skaf was charged with sending mail containing white powder to a corrections department official from prison in an apparent hoax terrorist act.^[13]
• Mohammed Skaf, younger brother of Bilal Skaf, was one of the gang rapists. He was sentenced to 32 years for his role in the gang rapes, but also had his sentence reduced on appeal, to 19 years with a non-parole period of 11 years. However, on 28 July 2006 he received an additional 15 years, with a minimum of seven and a half years over the Gosling Park attack. Mohammed Skaf will now be eligible for release on parole from 1 July 2019.^[6] Skaf showed no remorse for his crimes, making sexually inappropriate remarks to female staff at the Kariong juvenile facility where he was incarcerated, and continued to blame his victims for initially agreeing to go with him because "they came out with us as soon as I asked them."^[14]
• Belal Hajeid, then aged 20, was another gang rapist who was convicted and imprisoned for 23 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. Hajeid later had his sentence reduced on appeal.
• Mohammed Sanoussi, then 18, gang rapist who was sentenced to 21 years with a non-parole period of 12 years for the 10 and 30 August rapes. Sanoussi later had his sentence reduced to 16 years on appeal. Shortly after Sanoussi's conviction his brother and cousin were banned from visiting him in prison for three months after a rowdy clash with staff at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre where he was incarcerated. Shouting broke out when staff removed the visitors after they had tried to pass newspaper clippings to the brothers about their sentencing the previous day.^[15] Sanoussi remains behind bars after being denied parole for a second time in October, 2011. [1]
• Mahmoud Sanoussi, brother of Mohammed Sanoussi, then aged 17, was sentenced to 11 years and three months imprisonment with parole available after six-and-a-half years. He unsuccessfully appealed against his sentence in 2005. He was released on parole in May 2009, but had his parole revoked in March 2010 due to his drug use.^[16]
• Mahmoud Chami, then 20, attacker sentenced to 18 years with a non-parole period of ten years. Chami unsuccessfully appealed against his sentence in 2004. Chami is eligible for released on parole in December 2012.^[17]
• "H" (Identity sealed: H has had his name suppressed under court order due to his "intellectual and mental disabilities"^[18]), then 19, was sentenced to 25 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. 'H' later had his sentence reduced on appeal.
• "T", then 16, was initially sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years for his role in the 30 August rape. He was retried and sentenced to eight years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. He was released from prison in late June 2007.^{[19] [20]}
• Mohammed Ghanem, then 19, was the final person to be sentenced and was imprisoned for 40 years with a non-parole period of 26 years for two counts of rape. Ghanem, like his co-offenders Bilal Skaf and Mohammed Skaf showed no remorse for his actions, effectively opting to "tough it out" at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre where he was detained while awaiting trial.^[21]

There was evidence to convict only nine men of the fourteen suspects. Sentences totaled 240 years in prison.

Racial controversy

Conservative commentators such as Miranda Devine categorised the crimes as racially motivated hate crimes.^[1][2][3] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the rapists had stated to a victim, during the attack, "You deserve it because you're an Australian" and "I'm going to fuck you Leb style". Two thirds of Muslim and Arab Australians said that they experienced an increase in racial vilification towards them after a number of events including the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA, the Bali bombings, and these rapes.^[22]

New laws

The gang rapes led to the passage of new legislation through the Parliament of New South Wales, dramatically^{[clarification needed]} increasing the sentences for gang rapists by creating a new category of crime known as aggravated sexual assault in company.^[23]
Also, in the course of one of the trials the defendants refused counsel as they believed that "all lawyers were against Muslims". This led to the contentious prospect of the defendants being able to cross-examine the witnesses- the victims- themselves,^{[citation needed]} a situation that was averted by further legislation being put through the New South Wales parliament.^[24]
Actions taken by government ministers, including Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr, who publicly identified the perpetrators' background, led to controversy. Ethnic community group leaders, including Keysar Trad of the Lebanese Muslim Association, complained that Carr was smearing the entire Lebanese Muslim community with the crimes of a few of its members, and that his public comments would stir up ethnic hatred. ^[25]
The first court case heard under the new sentencing regime concerned the gang rapes of two women by Pakistani and Nepalese immigrants in Ashfield on 28 July 2002.

Coordination of the attacks

The attackers used SMS and mobile phones to orchestrate the attacks, utilizing this technology to phone ahead to other attackers to co-ordinate transport of rape gang members to the locations where women were being held. Authorities later released some of this material, recovered from the rapists' mobile phones. The attackers texted such messages as "When you are feeling down ...bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up".^[26] and "I've got a slut with me bro, come to Punchbowl"

Vachathi case

The Vachathi case refers to a crime that happened on 20 June 1992 in the Vachathi village of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu. A team comprising 155 forest personnel, 108 policemen and six revenue officials entered the Dalit-dominated Vachathi village, searching for smuggled sandalwood^[1]. Under the pretext of conducting a search, the team ransacked the villagers' property, destroyed their houses, killed their cattle, assaulted around 100 villagers, and raped 18 women.^[2]
On 29 September 2011, a special court in India convicted all 269 accused officials for atrocity on Dalits and 17 for rape. 54 of the accused had died by the time; the remaining 215 were sentenced to jail

Imrana rape case

The Imrana rape case is the case of the sexual assault of a 28 year-old Indian Muslim woman by her father-in-law on 6 June 2005 in Charthawal village in the Muzaffarnagar district Uttar Pradesh, India (located located 70 km from Delhi). The village elders and subsequently, several levels of Islamic legal opinion regarded Imrana's marriage with her husband null, as the Sharia regards sexual relations with both the father and son as incestuous. This sparked nation-wide controversy as critics argued the case was treated as adultery and not rape.

Rape and Islamic rulings
On 6 June 2005, Imrana, 28 years old at the time, and the mother of five children, was raped by her 69-year-old father-in-law Ali Mohammad.
Soon after she was raped, a local Muslim panchayat (council of elders) asked her to treat her husband Nur Ilahi as her son and declared their marriage null and void.^[3] Imrana defied the panchayat's ruling and continued living with her husband.
The leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband also issued a fatwa^[4] or opinion, which quotes from Quran 4:22: wa la tankihoo ma nakaha aaba-o-kum, “And marry not women whom your fathers married”, and not distinguishing between rape and adultery, said that as a result of her father-in-law's act, she should now be treated as the mother of her husband and she could no longer live with him even though Imrana had not married her father-in-law. She was still married to her husband when she was raped by her father in law therefore the fatwa provided by the panchayat's disregard the Islamic rulings against rape and the punishment for the rapists. Due to such fatwa Imrana is in a way being prosecuted instead of her rapist father in law as she is being ordered to leave her husband and start a life with her rapist. The fatwa is a clarification of the ruling by the village leaders who disregarded the Islamic teachings for such cases for the sake of shunning Imrana who is thought to have brought shame to the community by having sexual intercourse with her father in law.^[5]
This fatwa was based on the Abu Hanifa school of Islamic Jurisprudence (Hanafi fiqh), which rules that on having sex with a man she marries, a woman has the status of mother to all his children. The other three schools, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, reject this position^[6][7] The All India Muslim Personal Law Board also endorsed the fatwa,^[8] but opinions were divided between the Hanafi and Shafi'i,^[6] the two sunni fiqh's mostly represented in India.
Later, the Deoband seminary denied that it has issued such a fatwa.^{[citation needed]} Nur Ilahi continued to stay with Imrana and said that "[they] neither sought advice nor counsel from Deoband. [They] have not raised the issue before clerics."
At one point, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav also endorsed the view of the Darul Uloom that she can no longer live with her husband.
After Imrana's case was highlighted by the national media, the National Commission for Women directed authorities in Muzaffarnagar to take action.^[9] The body's chairperson Girija Vyas asked the Uttar Pradesh government to punish the guilty and sought a report on the incident.

Arrest of father-in-law

Police registered a case under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against Mohammed Ali and arrested him. Police also filed a case against him on 30 June 2005 with a medical report and recorded Imrana's statement before a magistrate. The court had turned down Mohammed Ali's bail plea on 5 December 2005
In a video recorded by the Muslim Political Council of India,^[10] Imrana (veiled) says that once she screamed, Mohammed Ali had run away. On being asked again, she reiterates that the forceful attempt was not successful.^[11]
However, the court took a different view based on evidence presented in the trial. On October 2006, Mohammed Ali was condemned to a prison term of ten years for raping Imrana. At one point the defense lawyer sought a leniency based on age of the defendant, but this was denied.^[12] The judge also directed Mohammed Ali to pay compensation of Rs 8,000 to Imrana for raping her.^[13] On the separate charge of criminal intimidation, Mohammed ali was sentenced to three years in prison and fined in Rs 3,000.

Timeline

Chronology of events in the Imrana rape case:

• 6 June 2005: Ali Mohammed raped his daughter-in-law Imrana.

• 13 June 2005: A local Muslim panchayat declared Imrana's marriage to Nur Ilahi void as she "had sex" with her father-in-law and asks her to treat her husband as her son, which means she would have to stop living with him.

• 13 June 2005: Mohammed is arrested.

• 16 June 2005: Mohammed is sent to judicial custody.

• 30 June 2005: The police filed cases against Mohammed along with a medical report. Imrana's statement is recorded before a magistrate.

• 5 December 2005: The court turned down Mohammed's bail plea.

• 30 December 2005: The charges are framed against Mohammed.

• 19 October 2006: The court sentenced Mohammed to 10 years in prison for raping Imrana. He also received a three-year term for a separate charge of criminal intimidation.

Bhanwari Devi

Bhanwari Devi is an Indian woman, whose alleged gang rape in 1992 and the subsequent court case attracted widespread media attention nationally and internationally. Bhanwari Devi's legal battle culminated when the Supreme Court of India in a PIL for the first time, defined sexual harassment at workplace, preventive measures and redress mechanism. The judgement is popularly known as "Vishaka Judgement"
Biography
Bhanwari Devi is a low-caste potter from Bhateri, a small village in Rajasthan located 55 km from the state capital Jaipur. Most of the villagers belonged to the conservative Gurjar community, which is higher in the caste hierarchy than the Kumhar caste, to which Bhanwari belongs.

As a saathin

In 1985, when she needed money, Bhanwari became a saathin ("friend"), a grassroots worker employed as part of the Women's Development Project (WDP) run by the Government of Rajasthan. As part of her job, she took up issues related to land, water, literacy, health, Public Distribution System, and payment of minimum wages at famine relief works.^[2] In 1987, she took up a major issue of the attempted rape of a woman from a neighbouring village. All of these activities had the full support of the members of her village. However, in 1992, Bhanwari found herself alienated, when she took up the issue of child marriage.^[2]
In 1992, the State Government of Rajasthan had decided to launch an anti-child-marriage campaign during the fortnight preceding Akha Teej, which is considered an auspicious date for marriages. The WDP members and other government employees tried to convince the local villagers against child marriage. However, some influential conservative Gurjar families in the village were determined to perform child marriages. In one such family, Ram Karan Gurjar was planning to marry off his 9-month old daughter. Bhanwari's attempts to persuade the family against this move met with a hostile response.
On May 5, the day of Akha Teej, the Deputy Suprintendent of Police (DSP) and SDO came to Bhateri and stopped the marriage of Ram Karan's infant daughter. The marriage, however, took place next day at 2 a.m and no police action was taken. The Gurjar community in the village felt that the police interference in their affairs must have been a consequence of Bhanwari's report to the police. The annoyed villagers refused her water from the well, refused to sell her milk and started threatening her regularly.

The gang-rape

According to Bhanwari,^[3] on 22 September 1992, at 6 p.m., five villagers attacked her husband Mohan Lal and left him unconscious, while the couple was working on their field. The five men were Ram Karan Gurjar, Ram Sukh Gurjar, Gyarsa Gurjar, Badri Gurjar and Shravan Sharma. When she came to her husband's rescue, Gyarsa and Badri raped her, while the other three held her.
Bhanwari reported the incident to Ms. Sharma, the pracheta (a block-level worker). The pracheta took her to the Bassi police station to lodge a First Information Report (FIR). The DSP who examined Bhanwari for signs of injury, doubted her story, and sent her to the Primary Health Center (PHC).^[4] The Indian medical procedure and legal guidelines stipulate that the examination of a female rape victim be performed by female doctors, but the two female doctors at the PHC were not available at the time. The only male doctor available refused to conduct the examination, and instead sent her to the Sawai Man Singh hospital in Jaipur, with a chit requesting a medical examination "confirming age of victim". The Medical Jurist at Jaipur said that he couldn't conduct the test without orders from the Magistrate. The Magistrate refused to give the orders until the next day, as it was past his working hours.^[4]
The order was sanctioned next day, but only for a general medical examination. The vaginal swab was taken more than 48 hours after the alleged rape, although the Indian law requires this to be done within 24 hours.^[4] Although the medical examination was conducted 52 hours after the rape, the trial began only two years later, in a lower court.^[5]
At the police station, Bhanwari was asked to deposit her "lehanga" (long skirt) as evidence. She had to cover herself with her husband's blood-stained saafa (turban) and walk 3 km to the nearest saathin's village Kherpuria, at about 1 a.m.^[4]
On 25 September 1992, Rajasthan Patrika carried a small news item stating that a woman from Bhateri had registred an FIR in Bassi 'thana' alleging gang rape.^[2] Following this, a number of local Hindi dailies as well as national dailies reported the incident. On 2 October 1992, the Rajasthan Patrika carried an editorial article Kroor Hadsa ("Brutal Incident") condemning the incident. Soon after, many Jaipur-based women's groups and other social organizations began making inquiries about the incident. However, Bhanwari was accused of fabricating the entire incident by the alleged rapists and their supporters, and faced public humiliation in her village.^[2] She refused monetary compensation to avoid allegations that she had cooked up the rape story to get money.^[6]

The court case

In 1994, Bhanwari Devi was offered compensation by the accused to withdraw the court case against them. She refused, and instead asked them to restore her dignity by accepting that they had raped her. Bhanwari's brothers wanted her to accept the compensation, and broke all ties with her when she refused to do so. Sometime later, her elder son, daughter-in-law and her in-laws followed suit.^[5]
During the course of the case, five judges were changed, and the sixth judge ruled that the accused were not guilty, in November 1995. The district sessions judge pronounced that upper-caste men could not have raped a Dalit.^[6] The rapists included an uncle-nephew pair, and the judge insisted that a man could not possibly have participated in a gang-rape in the presence of his nephew. He also said that since the medical examination happened 52 hours after the alleged rape, Devi could be lying. He also said that Bhanwari's husband couldn't have passively watched his wife being gang-raped.^[6]
A state MLA organised a victory rally in the state capital Jaipur for the five accused declared not guilty, and the women's wing of his political party attended the rally to call Bhanwari a liar.^[5] The State Government decided to appeal against the judgment. The judgement led to a nationwide campaign for justice for Bhanwari Devi.^[6] However, by 2007, 15 years after the incident, the Rajasthan High Court held only one hearing on the case and two of the accused were dead.^[6]

[edit] Aftermath

Bhanwari Devi and her family were ostracized by the villagers, majority of whom belonged to the 'upper' castes. Her son Mukesh (who was barely four years old when she was raped) had been beaten up by local Gurjar boys when he went to a college in Dausa. He had a difficult time finding a family willing to marry their daughter to him.^[6] Bhanwari Devi's own caste ostracized her as they believed that she had been "polluted" by rape. Bhanwari Devi accepted Rs. 25,000 from the Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, but her brother spent the entire amount in organizing a Kumhar caste panchayat, where people were asked to accept her back into the community.
In 2001, Jag Mundhra made a film Bawandar on Bhanwari Devi's story, which renewed public interest in the case. The New Indian Express journalist Sukhmani Singh tracked her down, and reported: "Feisty, outspoken, innately hospitable, she openly expressed her resentment against both the women's groups and the government, all of whom have been fiercely guarding her like their pet mannequin all these many years."^[7] He reported that she was "weary, resigned and bitter" after all these years. According to him, a small-time political worker and businessman describing Bhanwari as a "rakhi sister" had brokered a deal with Mundhra for the film.^[7] He also reported that Bhanwari wanted to leave Bhateri, but couldn't afford to do so. Her sole source of income was a buffalo, as her two bighas of land had become unproductive due to three years of drought. Most of the money that she received as part of the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award in 1994 was locked away in a trust to aid women.^[8]

Impact

Bhanwari Devi risked her life amidst threats from the conservative villagers, and showed courage in seeking justice in spite of social boycott. It was for the first time in the conservative region that a woman was not ashamed of rape and spoke openly about it. Bhanwari Devi's case shaped the women's movement in Rajasthan, and emboldened other rape victims to come forward and lodge complains against their rapists.^[9]
Bhanwari Devi had attracted the ire of her rapists solely on the basis of her work. This prompted several women's groups to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India, under the collective platform of Vishaka.^[10] The petition, filed by Vishaka and four other women's organizations in Rajasthan against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997^[1] provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant victory for Bhanwari Devi's fight for justice.^[9]
By 2007, the average age of the first-time mother in Rajasthan had gone up to 16.5 years. According to Shivam Vij, this change was brought about by the efforts of women's groups, catalyzed by the Bhanwari Devi case.^[6]

Recognition

Bhanwari Devi has received support both nationally and internationally, and was invited to be a part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.
In 1994, she was awarded the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award carrying Rs. 1 lakh cash prize, for her "extraordinary courage, conviction and commitment".^[11]
In 2002, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, alloted a residential plot to Bhanwari Devi and announced a grant of Rs. 40,000 for construction of a house on the plot. He also sanctioned an additional amount Rs. 10,000 for the education of her son.^[12]